|
|
Algis, H.erectus had unexpectedly dense bones *for his size*!
The traditional PA "explanations" are clearly ridiculous: bee-brood eating,
vitamin intoxication (a whole species intoxicated :-D), head-banging &
other nonsense.
IOW, there's no alternative explanation as the one we see in other
thick-boned mammals. Why on earth can't something that is true for other
mammals not be true for our ancestors??
We know Homo 1.8 Ma had dispersed to Java in the East & to Ain-Hanech in the
West. Why do you believe they had not followed the coasts?? If they did
follow the coasts, why should they not have collected sea foods?? including
through diving? If they dived parttime, why would they not have acquired to
some extent some typical features of slow diving species, incl.somewhat
thicker bones?
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT1
AAT = Homo littoral diaspora
AAT says that some time after the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors were
seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles,
shell-, crayfish, algae... The theory (based on the behavior, anatomy &
physiology of living humans compared to other animals) explains many
typically Homo traits (not seen in apes or australopiths) a lot better than
dry savanna scenarios do: brain size, diving skills, breathing control,
vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway,
projecting nose, reduced sense of smell, handiness, tool use, late puberty,
long legs, body alignment, reduced climbing, fatness, fur loss, high needs
of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids...
In the fossil & archeological record, this waterside episode is reflected in
the Plio-Pleistocene dispersals of Homo along the Indian Ocean & African
coasts: 1.8-Ma Homo remains come from Algeria, Iran, Kenya, Georgia, Java...
always near lakes or seas (R.Dennell 2003 JHE 45:421); in spite of sea level
changes (Ice Ages), Homo much more than australopith remains have been found
amid shells, corals & barnacles, from 1.8 to 0.1 Ma (throughout the
Pleistocene), in coasts all over the Old World (Mojokerto, Terra Amata,
Table Bay, Eritrea...), even on islands that could only be reached by sea
(Flores 0.8 Ma http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm).
________
"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1121417121.106491.208480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>> "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1121298695.616314.270430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>> > What I said was... "... In dry seasons, of course, (and there were just
>> > as
>> > many, if not more of those) they'd have little compulsion to wade.
>> > Then, I
>> > think my model is completely compatible with anyone's (except, of
>> > course,
>> > Marc Verhaegen's and Stephen Munro's.) " See? I'm suggesting that in
>> > *dry* spells they'd have little compulasion to wade. What I'm saying is
>> > that my wading model includes periods of time when they'd be adapted to
>> > moving about dry open spaces on the African savanna. I thought you were
>> > vehemently opposed to that idea
>>
>> Yes, of course. It's simply ridiculous to think that a heavy-boned animal
>> like H.erectus was adapted to cursorialism.
>
> If the animal is big, it has heavy bones. Elephants are big and they're
> terrestrial and they're heavy boned. Why is it ridiculous to think that
> far smaller animals, like Homo erectus, could also have been adapted to
> walking?
>
>> Or that an mammal with a poor
>> sense of smell was adapted to moving about open dry spaces. Or that a
>> mammal
>> with reduced masticatory muscles was adapted to such environments. Or
>> that a
>> plantigrade mammal was. Etc.Etc.Etc.
>
> How do you know Homo erectus had a poor sense of smell? Perhaps humans
> lost some of it during our coastal diapora out of Africa.
>
>> > but if you're finally coming round to accepting that humans are adapted
>> > to
>> > efficient terrestrial walking, that's great Marc. Algis Kuliukas
>>
>> Terrestrial walking is not efficient, Algis: running is more efficient,
>> but
>> humans only run 35 km/hr, and our ancestors probably even less.
>
> Human terrestrial walking is efficient, Marc. We only use two limbs not
> four and because of the inverted pendulum gait most of the propulsion
> comes from falling forwards. There's very little muscular effort
> involved.
>
> Why is it that you have to resist the idea that the method you use for
> almost 100% of your locomotion today was also the method predominently
> used by Homo erectus?
>
> Algis Kuliukas
>
|
|